Tell us what you think!

The Business of KM has been a bit quiet for the last week or so but that does not mean we are stopping! We are always looking for ways to improve our blog.

Please take a couple of minutes to complete a short survey by clicking on the link below and tell us how you think we are going.

Take the Survey

Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Mick Leyden
Project Executive – Knowledge Exchange
CPA Australia

Service-Dominant Logic – Exposing CPA Australia’s K-Strategy

Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic is an important new mindset in business. The fundamental premise of S-D Logic is that organisations, markets, and society are fundamentally concerned with exchange of service where a service is the application of competencies (knowledge and skills) for the benefit of a party. Thus, service is exchanged for service and all firms, markets and societies are service-based.

The fundamental difference between the more traditional Goods-Dominant logic and S-D logic is that S-D logic embraces value-in-use and co-creation of value and rather than value-in exchange and embedded-value concepts of G-D logic.

S-D logic advocates that rather than firms marketing to customers, customers are co-creators of value and the nature of that value can only be judged by the customer. Firms therefore can only make value propositions and these are either supported (translated) or rejected by the customer. Furthermore, firms must leverage the co-creation of value with alliance partners within their value network.

Let’s turn our attention to Tony’s post – CPA Australia and the Smart Enterprise. With a little analysis, we can see the strong threads of S-D logic and its innovativeness in CPA Australia’s knowledge strategy:

Co-creation of value with members:
• “Leveraging the IP of our members for the benefit of our members” (Connecting & Exchange)
Co-creation of value with alliance partners:
• “Provide a wider range of technical and non-technical knowledge largely sourced from high-quality education providers under alliance/partnership arrangements” (Relevance & Reach)
Value propositions:
• “Provide knowledge through innovative media” (Anytime, Anywhere)
• “Provide a compelling and market responsive CPA Program & flexible entry pathways for global career advantage” (Market Responsive CPA Program)

The strong ties with S-D logic and the CPA Australia knowledge strategy shows foresight by CPA Australia in making it’s services at one with membership needs. The key to it’s success will be how you as members will embrace the strategy and assist CPA Australia and your fellow members through adding your own value through participation in the program.

I strongly recommend you spend some time reviewing: http://www.sdlogic.net if you are unfamiliar with S-D logic. I believe this “mindset” will be at the centre of future organisational success. Particularly in a world that is Web 2.0 enabled (see Mick’s post below) for customers to take part actively in co-creation.

CPA Australia and the Smart Enterprise

A “Smart Enterprise” is one that allows knowledge, enabled by technology, to grow and flow freely, and on-demand, across departmental, geographic or hierarchical boundaries, where it is shared and made actionable for use and benefit by all.

CPA Australia has responded to member needs by developing a member-focused knowledge strategy. As a result of the internal, customer, competitor and external analysis completed, five key strategic themes have emerged that are essential to driving knowledge innovation and contributing to CPA Australia’s corporate goal.

Employability: CPA Australia will provide knowledge that supports our members through their career continuum.

Connecting & Exchange: We will leverage the IP of our members (for the benefit of our members) by helping them to share, contribute, exchange and access their combined intellectual capital.

Anytime, Anywhere: We will provide knowledge that is flexible and delivered in innovative channels & mediums that are responsive to market and member needs.

Relevance & Reach: We will provide access to a wider range of technical and non-technical knowledge largely sourced from high quality education providers under alliance/partnership arrangements.

Market Responsive CPA Program: Provide a compelling and market responsive CPA Program & flexible entry pathways for global career advantage.

Please remember this is all about people and not technology, more of this in my next post, but for now I would like to hear what our members think about our planned approach – Your Thoughts Please !

Why has everything gone ‘2.0’?

Every day I encounter something else that has gone ‘2.0’. We’ve got web 2.0, enterprise 2.0., library 2.0, recruitment 2.0, marketing 2.0, learning 2.0, journalism 2.0 and that’s just the handful I can think of off the top of my head. The question is, why should you care about yet another techno revolution?

The answer is not because your Gen Y staff will expect to be in a Workplace 2.0. It is because behind every ‘2.0’ initiative is a group of people with ideas, passion, motivation and enthusiasm.

Let’s look at another term often used to describe Web 2.0 tools; ‘Social Media’. I believe this term is a little more appropriate as it describes the heart of the 2.0 revolution. It’s is about people and behaviour far more than technology. This from Social Media and Enterprise 2.0 strategist Ross Dawson:

“successful Web 2.0 initiatives in organizations are fundamentally about shifting attitudes and behaviours. Collaboration increasingly drives value creation in organizations, but for that technology is only an enabler.”

The last few words here are the key point to keep in mind when thinking about everything 2.0, ‘technology is only an enabler’. Over the next couple of weeks I am going to look at a few of the key 2.0 tools and trends. I’ll tell you what they are, how they work and most importantly why they are worth your attention.

To kick things off check out this video which I think does a great job of describing what web 2.0 (or Social Media) is all about.

Delegation – The moral to the story

Earlier I wrote about an example of a manager unable to let go of control of their team’s tasks. While perhaps it was extreme this example provides us with clues about good practices in delegation:

1. Know the details of the task to a degree where you can make a good delegation decision.
2. Know the capabilities of your team members OR use the team to choose who has the best knowledge and skills for the task (you need to have set up a positive work culture first otherwise the task will become a “hot potato!”)
3. Know the performance requirements for success (based on your knowledge of the task) OR set these performance requirements with the team or team member.
4. Provide input or facilitate the team members’ execution of the task.
5. Assess the task outcome on the basis of the performance requirements.
6. Reflect on what went wrong and celebrate what went right in the task with the team member.
7. Enshrine these learnings with the team through discussion and perhaps case writing.
8. Pass these learnings onto other teams if they are generalisable and valuable across the wider organisational context.

The last three points of this list are essential for good knowledge management – these processes involve: self-reflection, group discussion, and generalisation to the broader organisational context through formal and informal social mechanisms.

In order to practice what I preach, I will be delegating aspects of this blog to my trusted and noble associate Mick Leyden, who is a Project Executive in CPA Australia’s Knowledge Exchange Team.

Mick will be discussing web 2.0 and other commonly available tools in the context of how they can support your business operations and strategy.

Delegation – understanding your team’s talents and leveraging them.

One aspect of successful leadership is knowing your team members and what they have to contribute. This point may sound self-evident, but you’d be amazed how often managers have no idea of what their team really can do – either in combination or separately.

Why is do managers fall into this trap? Perhaps managers in this situation are:

• Too busy and pay “lip service” to their team.
• Self-isolated in the sense they have created a social structure where there is a strong distinction between who “on-top” and who’s “below.”
• More interested in the “divide and conquer” principle of management – where the manager maintains high levels of competition within their team to ensure they maintain control of the team.
• Focussed on centring the workflow around themselves so they can keep control and feel like they are “managing.”

Often managers who partake in these activities use “ad hoc” delegation. Ad hoc delegation works like this:

1. The manager needs someone to “do a job” for them – perhaps this job is menial or the manager doesn’t like the task.
2. The manager chooses one of his team for the task on the basis of favours – who they like or dislike, depending on the role.
3. The team member undertakes the job. No performance expectation is given and often there is a lot of missing information the team member has to construct to understand what the job is (sometimes the manager has all of this information and makes in unavailable for reasons fuelled by their own agenda).
4. The job outcomes become known and the manager makes a subjective judgement on the team member’s performance.
5. Often this performance was not as good as the manager wished it to be or was not up to the managers’ expert standard.

The outcome of this scenario reinforces:

• The managers’ dominance in the team as the objectives setter, controller, and evaluator.
• The team members’ subservience to the manager.
• The managers’ belief of his capability over the less-experienced team.
• The team members’ belief the manager is not working with them and at worst, is actively working against them.
• The managers’ belief that he can’t delegate real responsibility to his team members because they “aren’t ready,” or at worst they are “incompetent.”
• The team members’ belief that working for this manager is a waste of time and there are better opportunities elsewhere.

While you may be thinking the example is extreme and perhaps a stereotype, reflect for a moment on whether you have subconsciously led your subordinates to similar outcomes. I know I have and I should know better!